Sprengeler Ole, Hebestreit Antje, Gohres Hannah, Bucksch Jens, Buck Christoph
Department of Epidemiological Methods and Etiologic Research, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Front Public Health. 2020 Aug 12;8:396. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00396. eCollection 2020.
Aim of this intervention study was to evaluate whether availability of standing desks in classrooms may reduce sitting time and enhance standing and stepping time during lessons and breaks. Further, we evaluated if differences in standing desk use differed by physical fitness (PF) levels of children. To assess sitting, standing and stepping during a typical school week in 3rd grade primary school children ( = 52), activPAL monitors were used at baseline: T0, 1st follow-up: T1 and 2nd follow-up: T2. At baseline, PF was measured using the standing long jump and the 6-min jog-walk to assign children as having low PF (LPF) or high PF (HPF). Standing desks were assigned randomly to intervention and control groups at T1 (group 1) and T2 (group 2) with a cross-over design. Changes of sitting, standing and stepping were analyzed to investigate intervention effects at follow-up, using linear mixed models. At baseline, children spent about 60 and 30% of time sitting during lessons and breaks, respectively. After installing standing desks (T1), significantly lower proportions of sitting were observed in the intervention group 1 [-13.1%, 95%-CI: (-20.5; -5.72)] and the control group 2 [-9.78%, 95%-CI: (-17.3; -2.28)]. Compared to the baseline measurement (T0), lower proportions of sitting were particularly expressed during school breaks in group 1 and 2 after intervention in T1 [group 1: -10.3%, 95%-CI: (-16.4; -4.25)] or in T2 [group 2: -8.59%, 95%-CI: (-15.2; -1.94)]. In general, children with higher physical fitness were less sedentary and more active, but intervention effects did not differ by fitness levels. Standing desks provide an opportunity to reduce sedentary time during lessons and breaks at school in primary school children, but do not directly increase PA of high intensity such as stepping. Future studies should consider potential bandwagon effects caused by structural interventions.
这项干预研究的目的是评估教室中站立式办公桌的配备是否可以减少学生在上课和课间休息时的久坐时间，并增加站立和走动时间。此外，我们还评估了不同体能（PF）水平的儿童在使用站立式办公桌方面是否存在差异。为了评估小学三年级学生（n = 52）在典型上学周中的坐姿、站姿和走动情况，在基线（T0）、第一次随访（T1）和第二次随访（T2）时使用了activPAL监测仪。在基线时，通过立定跳远和6分钟慢跑步行测试来测量体能，将儿童分为低体能（LPF）或高体能（HPF）组。站立式办公桌在T1（第一组）和T2（第二组）时随机分配到干预组和对照组，采用交叉设计。使用线性混合模型分析坐姿、站姿和走动的变化，以研究随访时的干预效果。在基线时，儿童在上课和课间休息时分别有大约60%和30%的时间坐着。安装站立式办公桌后（T1），干预组1 [-13.1%，95%置信区间：（-20.5；-5.72）]和对照组2 [-9.78%，95%置信区间：（-17.3；-2.28）]的久坐比例显著降低。与基线测量值（T0）相比，在T1干预后，第一组和第二组在课间休息时久坐比例尤其降低[第一组：-10.3%，95%置信区间：（-16.4；-4.25）]，或在T2干预后[第二组：-8.59%，95%置信区间：（-15.2；-1.94）]。总体而言，体能较高的儿童久坐时间较少且更活跃，但干预效果在不同体能水平之间没有差异。站立式办公桌为减少小学生在上课和课间休息时的久坐时间提供了机会，但并不能直接增加高强度身体活动，如走动。未来的研究应考虑结构性干预可能产生的随大流效应。
